undefined | Better HN

0 pointshabnds10mo ago0 comments

seems comparable to chess where it's well established that a human + a computer is much more skilled than either one individually

0 comments

bgwalter10mo ago

This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.

Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm. "AI" would be incapable of even writing /bin/true without having seen it before.

It certainly wouldn't have been able to write Redis.

NitpickLawyer10mo ago

> This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.

> Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm.

Ironically, that also "hasn't been true for a long time". The best chess engines humans have written with "defined algorithms" were bested by RL (alphazero) engines a long time ago. The best of the best are now NNUE + algos (latest stockfish). And even then NN based engines (Leela0) can occasionally take some games from Stockfish. NNs are scarily good. And the bitter lesson is bitter for a reason.

bgwalter10mo ago

No, the alphazero papers used an outdated version of Stockfish for comparison and have always been disputed.

Stockfish NNUE was announced to be 80 ELO higher than the default. I don't find it frustrating. NNs excel at detecting patterns in a well defined search space.

Writing evaluation functions is tedious. It isn't a sign of NN intelligence.

hatefulmoron10mo ago

I don't think that's been true for a while now -- computers are that much better.

vjvjvjvjghv10mo ago

Can humans really give useful input to computers? I thought we have reached a state where computers do stuff no human can understand and will crush human players.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bgwalter10mo ago

This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.

Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm. "AI" would be incapable of even writing /bin/true without having seen it before.

It certainly wouldn't have been able to write Redis.

NitpickLawyer10mo ago

> This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.

> Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm.

bgwalter10mo ago

No, the alphazero papers used an outdated version of Stockfish for comparison and have always been disputed.

Stockfish NNUE was announced to be 80 ELO higher than the default. I don't find it frustrating. NNs excel at detecting patterns in a well defined search space.

Writing evaluation functions is tedious. It isn't a sign of NN intelligence.

hatefulmoron10mo ago

I don't think that's been true for a while now -- computers are that much better.

vjvjvjvjghv10mo ago

Can humans really give useful input to computers? I thought we have reached a state where computers do stuff no human can understand and will crush human players.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse